The Universalist. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1884-1897, 1887-03-12


mails.
If, as we have seen, religion inheres
in our nature, then it manifests itself
more or less in the life and conduct of
all men-it is necessity. 1t may be
asked, then, what is the necessity for
theology and what is its relative force
as compared with religion? The opin-
ions of men in all ages on religious sub
jects have differed, however much
they may be agreed as to the funda-
mental principles which form the base
of the science of moral ethics, or rather
the essentials of religious truths. God
has stamped inequality upon the whole
of creation, the mental as well as the
physical world; hence mental inequali-
ties produce their legitimate results
differences of opinion, and, as in other
departments of mind, there will be diff
erences Of opinion respecting religious
truths; and the thoughts of the leaders
will, of necessity, crystalline into creeds,
which differ in proportion to the diff
ferences Of temperament, mental and
moral perceptions, of those who formu-
late them.
In order to harmonic these apparent
defects of mind, men have ever been
prone to erect some infallible standard
of religious truth by which to test the
correctness of the views of their fell
lows. But all efforts to make men
think alike have proven sad failure.
If we appeal to the Bible, or any other
source, and set up this as an infallible
standard, the mental inequalities of
men necessarily prevent them from
seeing or understanding alike. In con-
sequence we have numerous human
creeds and human dogmas all differing,
and in order to give them the force of
authority they are declared to be the
true opponents and the divinely accred-
tied induces of moral truth, and the va
rious theological systems prove to be
as numerous as the multiplied opinions
of the leaders in each age, presenting
the melancholy and absurd spectacle
of more than hundred different creeds,
some of them essentially different, and
each presenting strong array of evil
dence that they are the divinely ap-
pointed opponents of religious truth,
many of which are in reality but little
better than well devised system of
heather mythology, each with it's tute-
lar deity.
1t is evident to any thinking mind
that these numerous theological sys-
TENS cannot all be true, and yet it is
reasonable to suppose that much truth,
mixed with much that is irrational and
absurd, is to be found in all. 1t is vain
for each system to point to an infallible
word of God in vindication of its truth,
or with the hope to produce unity of
moral ideas. The labored efforts of
the advocates of each system accom-
plish more Or less good, and also more
or less harm but the history of the
past writes their efforts to produce
a unity of thought a failure. A unity
of thought is not necessary to the
growth of religious truth and to the
highest possible development of mans
moral nature.
The intelligent nearer will perceive
the distinction which l here attempt to
draw between religion and theology.
Religion is of God, written and engrav-
ed in the nature of all men. 81 will
write my law in their hearts," but the
ology is of man. To state it different
ly: Religion is the recognized and
universal code of all, by which the life
and conduct of each individual is made
to subserve the best interests of man,
both in his own happiness and in that
of his fellows. 1t consists of certain
fundamental principles essential to the
happiness of man and to his existence
as a social being. Theology is the
special opinion of one man, or set of
men, and their conceived opinion of the
system of religion as whole, and of
the divine procedure in the administra-
tion of the moral universe. The one is
practical, the other is theoretical; the
one regulates the conduct of man,
the other his speculations; the one is
necessary to mans happiness, the other
not altogether unimportant to it, but
necessary result of mental endowment,
it being the instrument through which
he gives expression to his moral con-
ceptions the one is the positive pole of
mans nature, the other the negative.
Therefore it is what men do which
makes them good OF bad, and not what
they believe. 1 grant that belief may,
and does have much to do in determin-
ing human action; but men do not al
ways act from convictions, not even
from what they believe to be right;
they may hold to a false theory and
yet be virtuous and good so far as their
acts are concerned, and Uice versa. The
mere belief of the dogma of Free
Agency or of the Divine Prescience and
Fore ordination, of Universal Salvation,
or of Endless Misery for some of the
!